I've never understood why the death of Jesus is important.

From your remarks, it seems you understand more than Ivor, so please enlighten us with your apparently greater knowledge (if you are capable).

Click to expand...

Well, that's the problem; there's nothing to address. Note how the whole point is to wait for the weak link in the chain to step up with a definition; Ivor, like so many self-righteous poseurs, is clueless; the whole slothful point is to identify against something because it is easier than actually getting a clue.

Google AdSenseGuest Advertisement

Well, that's the problem; there's nothing to address. Note how the whole point is to wait for the weak link in the chain to step up with a definition; Ivor, like so many self-righteous poseurs, is clueless; the whole slothful point is to identify against something because it is easier than actually getting a clue.

Click to expand...

Agree.
Though I'm an atheist, I despise weak or fallacious arguments. The OP is not an argument made in good faith.

Imagine the roles reversed:
A theist posts a thread saying that atheists will 'burn in the fires of hell for not living by the word of God'.
How would other theists feel about that?

Would they think
1] 'Yeah! Take shots at heathens any way you can!'
or would they think
2] 'Uh hey. You're giving us theists a bad name. How are our opponents supposed to take us seriously with that kind of silliness?'

I have heard this argument before, but if I don't understand animal sacrifice either.
How can killing a sheep please God ?

Click to expand...

The act of offering something to a deity is an act of gift-giving that invites reciprocity. Religion in the ancient world was primarily transactional, in that the internal logic of ritual was to forge a relationship of mutual reciprocity between the divine and the human.
To describe animal sacrifice, as some have done here, as the act of giving up a valuable livestock animal is missing the point. In nearly all ordinary cases of animal sacrifice, the animal was cooked and eaten by the human celebrants (typically either boiling in a stew, or roasted at the altar fire). The sacrificial act is the act of building and maintaining relationship with the divine by offering the animal's life to the gods, and the subsequent consumption of it by the celebrants is the follow-through of the gods providing the flesh of the animal to humans as a gift in return. In certain situations, typically dire though it also arose when dealing with the spirits of the dead or underworld gods, an offering would be burnt entirely; but this did not constitute the majority of animal sacrifices.
It "pleases" the gods in the fact that you are giving something to them, showing that you respect them as Powers and inviting them into your home, your life, your community. Maintaining a good relationship with the gods through this repeated, mutual reciprocity was the entire goal of ancient city-state religions. Judaism was no exception to this complex of ideas and practices. It was ubiquitous across the ancient world. Whether you agree with this mindset or not is completely irrelevant. It is understanding the internal logic of it that is vital to understanding how Christianity derives the concept of Jesus-as-sacrifice.

I'd recommend reading Walter Burkert's Homo Necans, which goes into detail about the theory that sacrificial ritual derives from neolithic hunting rituals. His book Greek Religion, while obviously focused on the multifaceted religious life of Classical and Hellenistic Greece, also contains a lengthy delve into ancient sacrificial ritual, its socializing function, and the internal logic related to hospitality and reciprocity. If you care about understanding the ancient ritual mindset, and aren't just Bitching About Shows You Don't Watch (but applied to religion), I'd recommend reading them.

I've never understood why the death of Jesus is important.
Everybody dies, sooner or later. Death is commonplace.
How could the death of one man two thousand years ago be good news ?

Some people say that Jesus died for our sins.
Some say that we should die, but he died in our place.
Some say that he sacrificed himself to satisfy God's demand for justice.

None of these answers make any sense to me.
I can't see how God would be happy that his son died in our place.

Imagine a judge saying to a convicted murderer,
"You are guilty, but I like you, so I'm going to let you go free and my innocent son will be executed instead."

Click to expand...

it's not. jesus's crucifixion represents a scapegoat. the idea that god is his father and he also agreed to be sacrificed is just to give it the appearance of moral legitimacy.

this is a preposterous scenario not only between different species but on a whole other divide/gulf. that would be like a parent looking down at an ant mound and asking their child if they would like to be the sacrificial feast for them. apparently either god is not really his father or cares for him or the story is absurd.

interestingly though, there are people who are attracted to this idea and that is scum. there are people who resent or even hate very innocent type people and have a desire to use them or punish them or degrade them for the benefit of those who are very sinful. there is some form of jealousy involved here.

Actually, that is an excellent and loaded question. and the answers to that would reveal not only about religion but about the minds behind it, probably humanity and nature itself and even the universe as a whole.

the first clue is the assumption that sacrificing lives to god would appease it.

does he eat the sheep's flesh? no.

is he collecting it's soul? probably not.

does it please some bloodlust to kill something more innocent? maybe.

isn't that what jesus represents? the most sinless man? hated because most could not live up to or even wanted to live up to those standards?

the first clue is the assumption that sacrificing lives to god would appease it.

does he eat the sheep's flesh? no.

is he collecting it's soul? probably not.

does it please some bloodlust to kill something more innocent? maybe.

Click to expand...

According to the Bible, the smell of a burnt offering pleases the Lord; it doesn't say why. Still, though, that' was a particular ritual. The general idea, of course, in pretty much any sacrificial religious rite, is sacrificing something of value to the devotee. Food and economy, for instance. A sheep was a pretty valuable asset.

According to the Bible, the smell of a burnt offering pleases the Lord; it doesn't say why. Still, though, that' was a particular ritual. The general idea, of course, in pretty much any sacrificial religious rite, is sacrificing something of value to the devotee. Food and economy, for instance. A sheep was a pretty valuable asset.

Click to expand...

also, christian's teaching others to be christlike is in some way a form of an apology for his sacrifice, whether volunteer basis or not, so the values he died for or because of are not in vain. or that is partly the sentiment.

Scapegoat theory is one of the most important behavioral-anthropological symbols in American society. You and I can probably find a context to agree on your statement, but they need scapegoats; it's part of how they understand the Universe, and until those aspects of belief pass from life, yeah, we're stuck with scapegoats.

^^^
Then either it is referring to 1 particular sacrifice or it is 1 of many contradictions.

<>

Click to expand...

The word sacrifice means you give up something dear, and we don't know how far back in time sacrifice of belonging ( animals or even human ) goes, biblically we can see Cain and Abel have sacrificed agricultural product and sheep.
I think the meaning might be I have done wrong oh God, therefore : I will pay with something dear to me.

Agree.
Though I'm an atheist, I despise weak or fallacious arguments. The OP is not an argument made in good faith.

Imagine the roles reversed:
A theist posts a thread saying that atheists will 'burn in the fires of hell for not living by the word of God'.
How would other theists feel about that?

Would they think
1] 'Yeah! Take shots at heathens any way you can!'
or would they think
2] 'Uh hey. You're giving us theists a bad name. How are our opponents supposed to take us seriously with that kind of silliness?'